2023 Mac Studio Reviews: Faster M2 Ultra Chip and 8K Display Support

[DeepIn2U]

That's not a fair comparison because most PCs have physical RAM and SSD slots. You at least have the option to upgrade on your own.

True regarding the upgrade statement BUT:

RAM is STILL significantly slower in the PC upgrade realm
Storage on either PCIe/NVME is much slower let alone SSD.
Cheaper but a lot slower!

So M2 Ultra is slower than both the new Intel and AMD CPUs in real world tests according to the Ars Technica review, despite it doing better in synthetic benchmarks. Shows that Geekbench results don't really mean anything.

Are there any reviews that compare it against the 2019 Mac Pro? I'd like to see how the GPU compares to the W6800X Duo and W6900X.

since Apple started doing bake offs - the Schiller and Jobs show at WWDC/MacWorld events - I’ve always found bench scores as a general assessment of performance increase, a metric for teams to basically assess if procurement for upgrades was worthwhile. Nothing more.

ONLY the PC geeks, not nerds, GEEKS sing praises with matrimony, love and devotion to their dirty of silicon. And bringing themselves value to their tribe if one can so argue or spin the scores and spec sheet.

No different from a non-deserving spoiled brat whom got a Dodge Viper/GT-S for his 19th Bday whom can spit the specs yet cannot really drive it even at moderate speeds/cornering not handle braking.

 

[aibloop]

M2 Mac Studio (2023) in action! 🎥

View attachment 2217198View attachment 2217200View attachment 2217201View attachment 2217199

Dang, the ultra? Or M2 max?


I am tempted…

 

[DeepIn2U]

M2 Mac Studio (2023) in action! 🎥

View attachment 2217198View attachment 2217200View attachment 2217201View attachment 2217199

Congratulations on your new workstation!!

Would be nice to have this displayed on an M1 and M2 iPad Pro for interactive displays.

 

[thekrjaan]

The 2023 Mac Studio has been met with generally positive reviews from critics. Most reviewers have praised the Mac Studio's performance, design, and features. However, some have criticized the Mac Studio's price, which starts at $1,999.
Here are some of the reviews of the 2023 Mac Studio:

• The Verge: "The Mac Studio is a powerful little machine that's perfect for creative professionals and anyone who needs a lot of power in a small package."
• MacRumors: "The Mac Studio is a great option for anyone who needs a powerful Mac but doesn't want a bulky tower. It's also a good option for people who want to upgrade their existing Mac Mini."
• Engadget: "The Mac Studio is a great all-around computer, but it's especially well-suited for creative professionals who need a lot of power and storage space."

Overall, the 2023 Mac Studio is a powerful and versatile computer that is sure to please many users. However, its high price may be a deterrent for some.
Here are some of the pros and cons of the 2023 Mac Studio:
Pros:

• Powerful performance
• Small and compact design
• Versatile features
• Supports up to 8TB of storage
• Configurable with up to 128GB of RAM

Cons:

• High price
• No upgradeable components
• No dedicated graphics card option

If you are looking for a powerful and versatile computer that is small and compact, the 2023 Mac Studio is a great option. However, if you are on a budget or need a computer with a dedicated graphics card, you may want to consider other options.

 

[DeepIn2U]

Tick-tock'ing assumes a particular somewhat long-term plan (over at least three or four paired rounds); I don't think we know enough to say that's Apple's plan.
All we do know is that every indication is that the A15 was an energy-optimized version of the A14. As I said, there are some improvements, but almost all the performance improvement is from higher frequency at essentially the same IPC. Then A16 looks like a mad scramble to do the best they could with what was available (N4 on TSMC's side, next gen design on Apple's side ready for N3, so we get basically a shrunk A15).

It certainly would make sense (IMHO) for Apple to alternate between performance SoC designs (which then go on to Pro/Max/Ultra) and energy improved designs (which only ship as A and M). But that's just a speculation, I wouldn't claim more than that. And it may be an infeasible speculation if Apple concludes that TSMC dates are too variable to be relied upon for such a scheme...

Wel stated. I most certainly agree about the A15, however it didn’t stop there, nor was it intended by Apple: S series for Watch desperately needed more efficiency (and significantly still does) for the Watch Ultra.

Apple has a long way to go with their SoCs - for the portable lineup of wearable devices: AirPods/Beats TWE. And Watch. The former needs to get more than 10ths per charge with ANC ion the Pro’s! And all Watch series needs to last a full 5 days without charge or low power mode to really become ubiquitous for all digital watch users needs regardless of sport and needs!!

I’m worried about not seeing Jony Srouji during the M2 announcement but I think we’ll see his WWDC or product keynote speech when the M3’s launch.

I got a feeling Apple has something really significant for us then. Something of a big surprise. We shall see but I’m hoping.

 

[name99]

Wel stated. I most certainly agree about the A15, however it didn’t stop there, nor was it intended by Apple: S series for Watch desperately needed more efficiency (and significantly still does) for the Watch Ultra.

Apple has a long way to go with their SoCs - for the portable lineup of wearable devices: AirPods/Beats TWE. And Watch. The former needs to get more than 10ths per charge with ANC ion the Pro’s! And all Watch series needs to last a full 5 days without charge or low power mode to really become ubiquitous for all digital watch users needs regardless of sport and needs!!

I’m worried about not seeing Jony Srouji during the M2 announcement but I think we’ll see his WWDC or product keynote speech when the M3’s launch.

I got a feeling Apple has something really significant for us then. Something of a big surprise. We shall see but I’m hoping.

I agree about watch, but I suspect most watch energy goes into sensors, screen, and radio. So there's limits to how much a more efficient CPU/GPU will help.
But I agree that it's been long enough that a new SoC probably will help at least somewhat, and will come this year.

 

[name99]

But at 7000Gb/S though!!? Come on now. Be real.

People whining about Apple prices
(a) apparently have never encountered capitalism before and have no idea how the prices of ANYTHING works, from air tickets to cars to clothes.

(b) are not worth interacting with because it's always the same damn whine, has been that way for almost 50 years now. There is zero information conveyed in the whine, just an all-round waste of everyone's time.

 

[Allen_Wentz]

here's my dilemma: it's time for me to buy a new machine. i want a mac studio. my choices i'm mulling is do i get the M2 Max and get 96 GB of RAM, or should I get the M2 Ultra with 64GB RAM? The kind of work I do is drawing in Clip Studio, Photoshop, Illustrator, InDesign, After Effects, and Premier. Basically, I do a lot of graphics and some video. Right now I'm using an M1 Macbook Air with 16GB of RAM I bought when it came out (~2.5 years ago) and I'm ready for a desktop again. Thoughts?

Easy given the two options you configured: M2 Max and get 96 GB of RAM.

 

[Allen_Wentz]

Why are people hyping 3nm so much? I feel like when you look at it even on the Intel side, the Sandy Bridges lasted a LONG time because afterward you only got very minor IPC upgrades. That was what... 32nm? We had 4 GHz easy overclocks back then and when compared to more 6th, 7th, 8th gen Core processors were still able to keep up only with a minor disadvantage.

I think people are setting unrealistic expectations for M3 / 3nm. If you look at A-series CPUs, the advancements in processing power have long slowed down. We're reaching the point of only minor IPC improvements and are thermally limited. M2 uses more power than M1 and part of the performance advantage comes out to higher clocks and higher thermals. M3 isn't going to suddenly deliver +50% performance or thermals because of a process die shrink.

Agreed about the new ~3nm process being way over-hyped. But higher transistor densities should allow some interesting evolution of chip architecture. Probably relatively unimportant to the 90 percentile of users for whom the M2 Studio Ultra and below already perform spectacularly, but I expect Apple to address some of the current Mac Pro limitations via architectural evolution enabled within M3.

 

[Allen_Wentz]

Yes, I agree. The sale made the decision easier. Coming from a 9 year old mid-2014 MBP certainly helped as well! If I were on a more recent Intel or M1, I'd sell and put the proceeds toward the studio!

I'm still trying to figure out the memory thing though...I'm not sure how all those pro apps running had me at under 12 GB, yet with only Safari and Activity monitor, I'm over 10 GB!

The Mac OS does a great job of managing less than ideal memory. But don't expect to fully evaluate it via memory analysis apps. Real-world hard usage is when having more than enough RAM shows as operationally improved

 

[Allen_Wentz]

my experience with a 16gb MBP 14” M1 Pro while troubleshooting an issue wi5 Apple support - I opened photoshop, illustrator, I design, premiere, after fx, logic, ableton and opened demo files or big projects in each.

It made almost no difference. It wouldn’t slow down in doing tasks even with some background rendering.

You might also want to check MaxTech’s comparison of 64gb versus 96gb in the Studio. They could found next to no benefit for the vast majority of tasks. (Max tech is not perfect but this test seems competent.)

64gb is almost certainly sufficient for your needs with those apps unless you’re doing a lot of 8k + editing.

Your comment needs modification (emphasis mine) to state "64gb is almost certainly sufficient for your needs [today] with those apps unless..." Mac OS and apps always since 1984 grow to like more RAM. Always. And Apple's sweet Unified Memory Architecture will further incentivize devs to build to take advantage of UMA RAM. Expect RAM demands to increase during the life cycle of any new box.

 

[DeepIn2U]

People whining about Apple prices
(a) apparently have never encountered capitalism before and have no idea how the prices of ANYTHING works, from air tickets to cars to clothes.

(b) are not worth interacting with because it's always the same damn whine, has been that way for almost 50 years now. There is zero information conveyed in the whine, just an all-round waste of everyone's time.

I’ll definitely take heed of that going forward.

In the beginning of the Internet forums (aka internet version of old BBS’) I forgot the minimalist grade of what you spoke truth of:

Don’t feed the trolls

Cheers

 

[AdamJD]

The Mac OS does a great job of managing less than ideal memory. But don't expect to fully evaluate it via memory analysis apps. Real-world hard usage is when having more than enough RAM shows as operationally improved

What I find very odd is that launching the same apps on my 16GB Mid-2014 MBP (Safari, FCPx, a couple of others) is showing just about the same Memory used as on the 16 GB M2 Mac Mini Pro. Not such an impressive showing next to a 9 year old Intel machine with all the bragging about Memory handling. I know this is a very non-technical analysis.

Right now, I have 12.72GB used, 3.24 cached files and 1.78 swap with Safari, Activity Monitor, Mail, Bitwarden, Stream Deck, and a few other small bg apps...and the big memory hog...Crashplan!...HOLD ON...

I'll add the pic below from Activity Viewer...along with WHAT?!!??!?

 

[Allen_Wentz]

What I find very odd is that launching the same apps on my 16GB Mid-2014 MBP (Safari, FCPx, a couple of others) is showing just about the same Memory used as on the 16 GB M2 Mac Mini Pro. Not such an impressive showing next to a 9 year old Intel machine with all the bragging about Memory handling. I know this is a very non-technical analysis.

Right now, I have 12.72GB used, 3.24 cached files and 1.78 swap with Safari, Activity Monitor, Mail, Bitwarden, Stream Deck, and a few other small bg apps...and the big memory hog...Crashplan!...HOLD ON...

I'll add the pic below from Activity Viewer...along with WHAT?!!??!?
View attachment 2222765

Like I said, the Mac OS does a great job of managing less than ideal memory. You describe the Mac OS seemingly doing a reasonable job both of managing your apps under 16 GB RAM on an old Intel box and also under 16 GB RAM on a new M2 box. As expected, nothing "odd."

I also said don't expect to fully evaluate it via memory analysis apps. Chasing memory analysis app numbers is IMO just silly.

Obviously your opinion led you to getting the same 16 GB RAM in your M2 box as you had 9 years ago in your MBP, so you will not see the operational improvements of having more than enough RAM that I referenced. Thanks to Mac OS doing its great job of managing less than ideal memory, the new M2 box will function fine but many workflows will find the 16 GB RAM limiting, especially as the years go on and apps/OS evolve to take increasing advantage of Apple's speedy Unified Memory Architecture.

Edit: When I say "operational improvements of having more than enough RAM," that is technically false as written, because unused RAM provides zero value add. What I mean to say is that there is value add when the OS/apps have unconstrained access to more RAM and consequentially actually do use more RAM. The semantics are weird, sorry if I am communicating poorly.

 

[Pressure]

What I find very odd is that launching the same apps on my 16GB Mid-2014 MBP (Safari, FCPx, a couple of others) is showing just about the same Memory used as on the 16 GB M2 Mac Mini Pro. Not such an impressive showing next to a 9 year old Intel machine with all the bragging about Memory handling. I know this is a very non-technical analysis.

Right now, I have 12.72GB used, 3.24 cached files and 1.78 swap with Safari, Activity Monitor, Mail, Bitwarden, Stream Deck, and a few other small bg apps...and the big memory hog...Crashplan!...HOLD ON...

I'll add the pic below from Activity Viewer...along with WHAT?!!??!?
View attachment 2222765

What is confusing for you?

Webpages caches all images, media and scripts as you scroll along to your hearts content. Close that tab and most of it will be freed up.

 

[AdamJD]

What is confusing for you?

Webpages caches all images, media and scripts as you scroll along to your hearts content. Close that tab and most of it will be freed up.

Right - I get that I'll recapture upon closing the windows...1GB is a 💩-ton of memory for a page...especially MacRumors - to be taking IMO.

 

[Allen_Wentz]

Right - I get that I'll recapture upon closing the windows...1GB is a 💩-ton of memory for a page...especially MacRumors - to be taking IMO.

RAM, including Apple's fast baked-on UMA RAM, is (relatively) cheap. Apple charges ~$400 per 32 GB added on the higher end boxes like MBPs and Studios; IIRC in the past we paid $400 for each 2 MB of third party RAM. We buy computers to do work, and UMA RAM is a very solid way to improve the computer's ability to do work.

The point is that focusing on memory-watching apps and whining about how much RAM some app grabs is wrong-headed thinking. Instead recognize that RAM is a computing tool, like more cores or the neural engine. Expect apps/OS designers to increasingly take advantage of more RAM. It should be easy to understand, since they have been doing so since 1984. Always.

 

[AdamJD]

Like I said, the Mac OS does a great job of managing less than ideal memory. You describe the Mac OS seemingly doing a reasonable job both of managing your apps under 16 GB RAM on an old Intel box and also under 16 GB RAM on a new M2 box. As expected, nothing "odd."

I also said don't expect to fully evaluate it via memory analysis apps. Chasing memory analysis app numbers is IMO just silly.

Obviously your opinion led you to getting the same 16 GB RAM in your M2 box as you had 9 years ago in your MBP, so you will not see the operational improvements of having more than enough RAM that I referenced. Thanks to Mac OS doing its great job of managing less than ideal memory, the new M2 box will function fine but many workflows will find the 16 GB RAM limiting, especially as the years go on and apps/OS evolve to take increasing advantage of Apple's speedy Unified Memory Architecture.

Edit: When I say "operational improvements of having more than enough RAM," that is technically false as written, because unused RAM provides zero value add. What I mean to say is that there is value add when the OS/apps have unconstrained access to more RAM and consequentially actually do use more RAM. The semantics are weird, sorry if I am communicating poorly.

I get it and appreciate your input...including "[c]hasing memory analysis app numbers is IMO just silly." 😂👍🏻 I'm on a new machine...doing some transferring, so a bit of staring at stats.

Re: latent memory... I don't think more than 16GB is necessary for most people doing video work. Processor power and disk speed are where I see my efficiency impacted. FCPx & Pixelmator Pro are super-efficient on Silicon. ONE Facebook tab and the Bitwarden Safari extension are each taking up over a GB. NOTE: Just took a look - Bitwaden is currently tracking this issue.

Considering the final price I ended up with on the M2 Mac Mini Pro, it would be about double for the base M2 Studio. I think most people would be surprised that a 9 year old machine was able to run the current FCPx and most plugins until the very latest update...nearly ridiculous. (I will say that I gained some skills replacing bloated batteries!)

 

[fromgophonetoiphone]

Is it me or are reviews of the M2 Mac Studio much better this time around? People seemed pretty meh the first time around but this time is much better received. For instance Verge went from 8 to 9 for score and they didn't notice anything about the fan noise difference.

What changed this time around? I feel some of the improved reception is simply because of the relative pricing compared to the new Mac Pro. Of course $1999 seems like a steal compared to $6999. Of course M2 is nicer than M1, but this machine isn't groundbreaking new or anything.

 

[CWallace]

Is it me or are reviews of the M2 Mac Studio much better this time around? People seemed pretty meh the first time around but this time is much better received. For instance Verge went from 8 to 9 for score and they didn't notice anything about the fan noise difference.

What changed this time around?

My guess is that now that we have an M2 Pro Mac mini that actually costs more than an M2 Max Mac Studio when configured with 32GB of RAM and 10Gb Ethernet, the Mac Studio's overall value for the price is that much clearer and better.

 

[fromgophonetoiphone]

My guess is that now that we have an M2 Pro Mac mini that actually costs more than an M2 Max Mac Studio when configured with 32GB of RAM and 10Gb Ethernet, the Mac Studio's overall value for the price is that much clearer and better.

Sure, this has always been an issue in the sense that a lower end product when up-specced will fall short but when you try to get close it will be really expensive to the point where you just upgrade. The same goes with MacBook Airs. If you overspec it, then you might as well get a MacBook Pro.

The M1 Mac Studio launched in a time when the Mac Mini didn't even have a Pro level CPU. You were stuck with 4 performance cores as the highest end model on the M1. You had to get an Intel Mac Mini if you wanted any extra ports.

I think my point is the M2 Mac Studio isn't really leaps and bounds better today than the M1 version. It's just that some of this relative pricing makes it seem better. The reception was pretty lukewarm and a lot of people felt it wasn't worth it last year, but somehow this year it seems like a winner.

 

[CWallace]

I think my point is the M2 Mac Studio isn't really leaps and bounds better today than the M1 version. It's just that some of this relative pricing makes it seem better. The reception was pretty lukewarm and a lot of people felt it wasn't worth it last year, but somehow this year it seems like a winner.

I imagine a fair bit of it was just bitterness over what Apple wanted for a Mac Studio and Studio Display compared what they were paying for an iMac 5K.

 

[aibloop]

I find it somewhat humorous that some writers see the default 512GB of on-board storage as unreasonable for pro-class users. We have always attached our editing stations to our SAN. We haven't had big drives on our Pros for well over a decade. Local storage is basically for the OS, virtual memory, and cache, and all the big stuff is on our big iron so it can be easily shared, managed, and backed up. Not everyone is a home user making YouTube videos in their garage.

If the 512GB ssd is 2x 256GB ssd. sure.

Why are people hyping 3nm so much? I feel like when you look at it even on the Intel side, the Sandy Bridges lasted a LONG time because afterward you only got very minor IPC upgrades. That was what... 32nm? We had 4 GHz easy overclocks back then and when compared to more 6th, 7th, 8th gen Core processors were still able to keep up only with a minor disadvantage.

I think people are setting unrealistic expectations for M3 / 3nm. If you look at A-series CPUs, the advancements in processing power have long slowed down. We're reaching the point of only minor IPC improvements and are thermally limited. M2 uses more power than M1 and part of the performance advantage comes out to higher clocks and higher thermals. M3 isn't going to suddenly deliver +50% performance or thermals because of a process die shrink.

As you say, M2 seems to be mostly a overclocked M1.

M3 should deliver rt raytracing logic, which is big for rendering things out of VFX packages and 3d rendering in general and games. I think there is a real chance M3 will go all the way up to 2x M3 ultra aka M3 "Extreme" for the Mac Pro, which would make it a "real" workstation.


M2 is a quite disappointing SoC for mobile. My M2 iPad Pro is not great on battery life tbh, slightly disappointed.

M3 should be a real generational jump, so the hype is justified imho.